United States v. Toemaz Blue ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-4127
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TOEMAZ DEMOND BLUE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:19-cr-00407-WO-1)
Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 24, 2020
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George E. Crump, III, Rockingham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Meredith Christine
Ruggles, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Toemaz Blue pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession with
intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district
court sentenced Blue to 151 months’ imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds
for appeal, but questioning whether Blue’s sentence is reasonable. Although advised of
his right to file a pro se brief, Blue has not done so. The Government has moved to dismiss
the appeal based on the waiver of appellate rights in Blue’s plea agreement. We affirm in
part and dismiss in part.
Where, as here, the Government seeks to enforce the appeal waiver and the
defendant has not alleged a breach of the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if it
is valid and the issue being appealed falls within the waiver’s scope. United States v.
Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 156 (4th Cir. 2018). Blue does not contest that he knowingly and
intelligently waived his right to appeal, see United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627
(4th Cir. 2010), and our de novo review of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the
waiver is valid and enforceable and that the court did not plainly err in accepting Blue’s
guilty plea. See United States v. Cohen, 888 F.3d 667, 678 (4th Cir. 2018) (stating standard
of review). Moreover, Blue’s challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence falls within
the waiver’s scope.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and have found no
meritorious grounds for appeal that fall outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we
grant in part the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss Blue’s appeal of his sentence,
2
and we affirm the district court’s judgment in all other respects. This court requires that
counsel inform Blue, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
States for further review. If Blue requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that
such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served
on Blue.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART
3